1. 2.95 How to write a scientific paper (Author)
2016∙Impact Factor
2.95
Smart investigator
Allergy, Asthma & Immunology Research
July 04, 2017
How to write a scientific paper (Author)
Being a good reviewer will help you to be a good author or vice versa (Reviewer)
Hae-Sim Park MD, PhD
Department of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
Ajou University School of Medicine
Suwon, South Korea
e-aair.org

2. JCR 2016: ”Allergy” SCI Impact Factor 현황
Rank
Abbreviated Journal Title
ISSN
Total
Cites
Impact
Factor
5-Year
Impact Factor
Immediacy
Index
Citable
Items
Cited
Half-Life
Self cites
(%) 1
J ALLERGY CLIN IMMUN
46218
13.081
12.376
3.175
314
6.8
11.007 2
ALLERGY
16206
7.361
6.060
1.773
185
7.3
6.557 4
J ALLER CLIMM-PRACT
1653
5.317
5.641
1.866
112
2.3
4.770 3
CLIN EXP ALLERGY
10959
5.264
4.871
1.508
132
8.1
4.659 5
CLIN REV ALLERG IMMU
2403
5.263
4.682
1.517 60
4.8
4.412 6
PEDIAT ALLERG IMM-UK
3787
3.775
3.554
1.03 99
5.9
3.058 8
CURR ALLERGY ASTHM RE
2071
3.735
3.188
0.793 87
4.5
3.555 7
ANN ALLERG ASTHMA IM
6970
3.728
3.23
0.423
182
8.3
3.298 12
IMMUNOL ALLERGY CLIN
1463
3.61
2.862
0.698 53
6.7
3.570 9
CURR OPIN ALLERGY CL
2861
3.463
3.273
0.593 81
3.308 22
CLIN TRANSIATIONAL ALLERGY
636
3.239
Not Available
0.450 40
3.054 14
ALLERGY ASTHMA IMMUN
1094
2.957
0.867
3.1
2.398 21
ALLERGOLOGY INTERNATIONAL
1487
2.879
1.283
4.9 15
ALLERGY ASTHMA CLIM
850
2.869
3.044
0.271 59
3.8
2.727 11
INT ARCH ALLERGY IMM
5175
2.720
2.617
0.265 98
8.6
2.335 10
ALLERGY ASTHMA PROC
1937
2.614
2.279
1.570 86
5.1
2.064 13
INT FORUM ALLERGY RH
1809
2.135
2.371
1.237
173
2.8
1.573 16
AM J RHINOL ALLERGY
3528
1.955
2.020
1.018
113
1.506 17
ASIAN PAC J ALLERGY Immunol X
698
1.011
1.224
0.326 43
0.898 19
PEDIA ALLER IMM PUL X
171
0.958
0.696
0.514 35
3.0
0.929 18
IRAN J ALLERGY ASTHM
457
0.812
1.033
0.075
0.710

4. Title, Abstract, Key messages
Format
Title, Abstract, Key messages
Abstract/title : key message and clinical implications
Important messages to help
During performing experiments
During data analysis
During writing
During submitting
During reviewing

5. High originality, Be creative..
Editors look for:
Is the topic relevant to the scope of the journal?
Is the topic timely and unique?
Is the topic significant(level of evidence)?
Are the findings relevant to in vivo and disease conditions?
General points:
Is the study of good quality?
Does it have proper ethical guarantees?
Are the methods and their reproducibility stated clearly?
Are the methods suitable for the problem being investigated?
Are there enough numbers of patients/experiments to
draw clear conclusions? 5

6. Is there a clear hypothesis/aim?
Introduction
Is the hypothesis and aim of the study appropriately introduced?
Is the background information nicely introduced?
Is there any unnecessary information?
Are there any biases that may mislead the reader?
Is there a clear hypothesis/aim?
This should be stated in the abstract
Justified in the introduction
Established before results are mentioned
Investigated with suitable methods 6

7. Title and abstract Introduction Methods Recommendation
Indicate the study’s design with a commonly used tern in the title or the abstract
Provide in the abstract an informative and balanced summary of what was done and what was found
Introduction
Background/rationale
Explain the scientific background and rationale for the investigation being reported
Objectives
State specific objectives, including any specified hypotheses
Methods
Study design
Present key elements of study design early in the paper
Setting
Describe the setting, locations, and relevant dates, including periods of recruitment, exposure, follow-up, and data collection
Participants
Give the eligibility criteria, and the sources and methods of selection of participants
Variables
Clearly define all outcomes, exposure, predictors, potential confounders, and effect modifiers. Give diagnostic criteria, if applicable
Data sources/ measurement
For each variable of interest, give sources of data and details of methods of assessment(measurement). Describe comparability of assessment methods of there is more than one group.
Bias
Describe any efforts to address potential sources of bias
Study size
Explain how the study size was arrived at
Quantitative variables
Explain how quantitative variables were handled in the analyses.
If applicable, describe which groupings were chosen why
Statistical methods
Describe all statistical methods, including those used to control for confounding
Describe any methods used to examine subgroups and interactions
Explain how missing data were addressed
If applicable, describe analytical methods taking account of sampling strategy
Describe any sensitivity analyses

8. Results Participants Descriptive date Outcome date Main results
Report numbers of individuals at each stage of study- eg numbers potentially eligible, examined for eligibility , confirmed eligible, included in the study , completing follow-up , and analyzed
Give reasons for non-particioation at each stage
Consider use a flow diagram
Descriptive date
Give characteristics of study participants (eg demographic, clinical, social) and information on exposures and potential confounders.
Indicate number of participants with missing data for each variable of interest
Outcome date
Report numbers of outcome events or summary measures
Main results
Give unadjusted estimates and, if applicable, con founder-adjusted estimates and their precision (eg, 95% confidence interval). Make clear which confounders were adjusted for and why they were included
Report category boundaries when continuous variables were categorized
If relevant, consider translating estimates of relative risk into absolute risk for a meaningful time period

9. Tables and Figures
Is the date presentation accurate and well structured?
Are the data consistent with the body of the paper?
Are tables and figures clearly labelled?
Is there any missing or duplicate information?
Do the number of study samples and n: in data match and differences reasonably explained?
Is original data shown(flow cytometry, western clots, immune histology) instead of bar graphs?
Are the controls clearly presented?
Is the “online repository” efficiently used? 9

10. Statistics Are the correct analysis, tests used?
Are the test results accurately interpreted?
Is the statistical analysis clearly presented?
Is an expert consulted for sophisticated tests?
Should the reviewer suggest having a biostatistics expert review the manuscript 10

11. Is the discussion relevant & focused?
Is the study discussed against the background of current knowledge?
Do the references appear correctly cited and accurate?
Are uncertainties, limitations of the study and biases discussed?
Is there a clear clinical or scientific message?
Could the discussion (or any other section) be shorter?
Key results
Summaries key results reference to study objectives
Limitations
Discuss limitations of the study, taking into account sources of potential bias or imprecision.
Discuss both direction and magnitude of any potential bias.
Interpretation
Give a cautious overall interpretation of results considering objectives, limitations, multiplicity of analyses, results from similar studies, and other relevant evidence.
Generalizability
Discuss the generalizability (external validity) of the study results 11

12. Reviewer’s scoring-I 12

13. Reviewer’s scoring-II13

14. Formal guidelines for clinical trials & systematic reviews
CONSORT for clinical trials Flow diagram, exclusions, power calculations, concealed random allocation, patients lost to
follow up (Ann intern Med 2001;134:663-94)
QUORUM for systematic reviews Inclusion and exclusion criteria, publication bias (Lancet 1999;354: ) 14

15. Re-read the title & abstract clinical implications/key messages
Do they convey the content of the manuscript accurately?
Write your suggestion, if you think the title may be improved
Look for missing important data, overinterpretations, misinterpretations.
Recheck instruction manual
Format checking and English editing
On line submission 15

16. in SCIe 2.95 2016∙Impact Factor Pl cite the recent AAIR articles
pISSN
eISSN
in SCIe
Web of Science®
Pl cite the recent AAIR articles
published during
e-aair.org
The Korean Academy of Asthma, Allergy and Clinical Immunology
The Korean Academy of Pediatric
Allergy and Respiratory Disease